In this essay I seek to explore and analyze the many differing perspectives from theologians, ecologists, and ecofeminists on the apocalyptic discourse and motifs which saturate the ideology of modern ecological movements. Specifically, the apocalyptic ideology of the ecomilitant group, Earth First!, is one that I explore in depth through the vehicle of multiple authors’ analyses.

So what is Earth first!? And what does it mean to be a movement that employs, maybe even unknowingly, apocalyptic ideology in its crusade for Mother Earth?

According to Dave, Forman, Earth First!’s founder, the philosophy and ideology of the ecological movement are radical in nature: “question the system, help develop a new world view; a biocentric paradigm, an earth philosophy” (347).  The central foundation is its avocation for wildlife preservation and biocentrism, or equality with nature. It is almost as if the movement were on a spiritual quest: all things are interconnected; all things are sacred, and so must be protected at any cost. Earth First! accuses “big,” corrupt government of selfishly and anthropocentrically destroying the earth by means of industrial civilization, deforestation, and loss of species habitat. To combat this, Earth first! calls for radical action and for members to employ tactics such as monkeywrenching (destroying industrial machinery), protests, and civil disobedience  to bring about specific ends— that of protecting Mother earth. Though such actions against the corporate giants of America and the whole of western civilization, ultimately may be perceived as pyrrhic endeavors to some, Forman holds to the belief that for those who love the earth, they can do no less. The sense of urgency and signification of ecological and catastrophic imminence present in Earth First’s discourse, is what propels members to take direct, immediate action. It is plain to see that Earth first!’s discourse is nuanced intricately with apocalyptic motifs.

According to Louis Ann Lorentezen, Earth First!s ecomiliarism is  propelled by an apocalyptic vision of eschatological ecological collapse. She reiterates the Earth First! premise that this ecological collapse is inevitable; brought on by human technological devastation and will result in the end of history. However there is hope of an ecological balanced future— that evolution may resume its natural course. If humans survive, they can re-establish primal systems of hunting and gathering that are compatible with an evolutionary future. This sense of “new Earth” parallels that in the book of Revelation.  Though there is a pessimistic outlook on the current ecological condition of the world, there is a more positive eschatological vison that proceeds this imminent downfall. This sense of urgency further fuels their perception of the current destructive anthropocentric paradigm. Earth first! Members believe the current ecological crisis, a thought common to general apocalyptic discourse, is the result of a certain evils: patriarchy, hierarchy, and anthropocentricism. By assigning a value-judgment to these human capabilities, members are able to justify their own actions as rightful and good when they fight back: “locating evil presumes that there are enemies who embody evil and against whom one must battle. Locating evil also presumes the possibility of salvation or an escape from evil” (147). Earth First’s eschatology is used to justify their eco-defense mechanisms: ecotage, and monkey-wrenching. The historic discourse of power, domination and hierarchy that is implicit in apocalypticism is nuanced even in ecological movements such as Earth first!. Lorentzen also gives an ecofeminist approach when she tackles Earth First!’s phallic masculinity and the gendered rhetoric used by Earth First!: One Earth first! Member noted the inextricable tie between ecology and gender, “If we want to save the planet, we must address root causes like patriarchy and the destructive exploitative society…..we can’t separate it” (151). Subverting this cause is the idea that “Mother Earth” must be saved from the continuous savagery of rape that humans commit against her and shows that the ideal patron saints to conquer and to protect her are men. Lorentezen argues that unless this rhetoric of patriarchy and domination changes, both women and the earth will continue to be exploited.

Martha Lee, a professor and researcher in the field of forestry and wildlife recreation at Northern Arizona University, tries her hand at explaining the foundation, ideology and divisions and factions of Earth First! She points out that Earth first! began as a radical ecological group who was initially fueled by a core millenarian ideology, but has since expelled this view and drifted into two separate factions. A fundamental precept of millenarian ideology is that of anthropocentrism, a term brought up already by Foreman and Lorentezen. However it is important to note what this entails: anthropocentricism is the belief that humans are superior to all of nature and are free to determine their own course: be that one of destruction or of repentance and change. However, one faction of Earth First! has changed its millenarian beliefs to reflect only apocalyptic beliefs and has come to see humans as equal to other natural species (not superior to) and thus, just as vulnerable and susceptible to errors begetted from animal instincts, and unlikely to change their behavior: this is why this faction can no longer be called a millennialism group (because the title necessarily implies a belief of a new beginning or a possibility of a new world after the collapse of this one— something, many members of Earth first! no longer believe is possible). This group advocates for both bio-centrism and biocentric equality. The other faction, a more humanistic group, however, believes in the betterment of the human species, and thus preserves the millenarian ideology. In her essay, the Resurgence of Millennialism, Lee further discusses the ideology of the two emerging factions of Earth First! and the eventual death of the original biocentric movement.  The millenarian faction, argues on behalf of social justice and anthropocentric social issues and the apocalyptic group, argues for biocentrism and wilderness. The social justice faction’s ideology promotes the idea that humans are good, and out of ignorance have been misled to commit destruction against the environment. There is a kind of humanist ideal of transformation and change present in this faction’s ideology. They believe with education, effort, and activism, they can bring people to awareness and help to slow the progression of current environmental destruction. Such efforts aim to ultimately preserve the human species.   The apocalyptic biocentric group, however, chooses to de-elevate human beings to the level of other animal species, and suggests that the apocalypse is imminent, and humans may or may not survive to be a part of the new millennium, and that’s okay.

Lee parrots the fact that the emergence of Earth First! Was in response to perceived corruption and autocracy of the U.S. government. And as such, Earth First!’s founding reflects a “spiritual and physical rebellion against the industrial and technological order that they believed was destroying the wilderness” (122).  EF!ers advocated participation in a higher moral law: that of intrinsic worth of wilderness. Again, we can see the apocalyptic discourse taking root. Big government, greed, egoism, and demoralization were destroying American society and the environment. Earth First!’s philosophy tackled these problem head on by creating a new political community centered around activism and offering a simple solution to present-day crisis: moderate consumption and a respect for all  of nature.  Thus, Earth First! Employs a lack of organization in its group, making it non-hierarchical in nature which augments its philosophy of flexibility and diversity. Earth First!er’s beliefs are rooted in deep ecology, which summits the idea that humans, since the Copernican Revolution, have swaddled themselves in the claim that they are somehow superior to other species and are thus, designed to rule over them. Deep ecology, the philosophy and spirituality, if you will, employed by EF!ers argue that humans are actually equal to all other species, and that nature has intrinsic worth. In this view, the world should be seen biocentrically. Advocating for the equal rights and life of all species, Earth First! added to this, a sense of urgency thus crystalizing its millennial transformation. The “apocalypse” for Earth First!ers is the inevitable extinction of entire species and habitats from the growth of industrial civilization that will threaten the very foundations of life. Each day of industrial civilization means the loss of wilderness. For Earth First!er’s  “The sooner the system collapses, the better” (125). EF!ers forecast the “apocalypse” taking place after the world’s oil supply runs out; their role is that of protector: to protect as much wildlife as possible, so that after the apocalypse, the biodiversity of the earth might be restored.

Shying away for a moment from the specific ecoapocalyptic group of this essay, Earth Frist!, one other author, Stephen Moore, gives his take on contemporary ecodestruction In his essay, Ecotherology, which, analyzes contemporary Eco-destruction through the lens of the book of Revelation. With a sense of satire and irony he makes a substantial case for the “new heaven” and “new earth” consisting of an empty, hyper-processed, vapid mall-like suite with a “Single stream and a token tree” (225). He says, “I confess to finding this celestial megacity singularly ill-designed to serve as a prophetic counterexample to the contemporary paving over of the planet and the annihilation of plant and animal species” (226). Moore addresses both ecological destruction of habitat and the planet. One central aim is to compare non-human animals to those present in the book of revelation. A central question is, are there any similarities between the book of revelation’s New Jerusalem and the current ecological conditions of our world? He dives into the area of animality to first address this question. He addresses the anthropomorphism apparent with both animals and the divine in Revelation, but decides to read animal as “animal” for the sake of decoding the human-animal relations present in them. He describes the “beast” in revelation as a monster not fitting into any animal category, and as such, is an agreeable image of political despotism.  This animal is outside the bounds of law. Moore than notes that the Lamb in the book of Revelation, a divine figure, must also be outside and above the code of law. He says God and the Lamb are monstrous figures of terror. Moore says all of this to say that Revelation excavates its own dualisms: it digs up exactly what it buries. Moore notes that historically the animal has been seen on the plane of two dichotomies: as innocent, and absolute goodness but also as evil and depraved. Both of these are seen in the book of revelation. Moore describes the interspecies marriage he perceives in the book of Revelation: the lamb and his bride, and the holy city of Jerusalem. Present in Moore’s essay are attacks at patriarchy and cultural and gender stereotypes. He describes the Lamb of Revelation as a symbol of hegemonic masculinity— a trope for domination. His bride is the ideal housewife. Next, Moore addresses the ecological consequences of the lay-out of the New Jerusalem. He says the book of Revelation paints a caricature of what we’re currently doing to our planet now. In keeping with the ideal of grandeur and the lawlessness of Sovereignty, Moore describes the superfluousness of the New Jerusalem. He says,“ the problem for Ecotherology is that the proportions are horribly wrong— but uncannily right if a dystopian vision is needed of where contemporary urban development is headed” (237). Moore depicts the New Jerusalem as a kind of over-sized vacant shopping mall. This anthropocentering— which as already mentioned, is a phenomenon which came into conscious thought by Descartes— is what is causing the massive onslaught of animal species, and ecology. He cites Derrida and emphatically claims that this model of living threatens all animal species. Animals are at first lowered in the book of Revelation: The lamb was slain. But Moore then makes an interesting argument in that the relationship between human beings and animals is radically inverted in the book of Revelation: the Lamb has dominion. And though this hierarchy is inverted, it is not deconstructed. Moore says, “Revelation, may be after all an unveiling of ‘what is’ and ‘what must soon take place’ an apocalyptic uncovering of the already present future of the catastrophic theriocidal cultures” (242). An uneasy note to end on, no doubt.

Shifting back to the ideology of Earth First, Bron Taylor— A professor of religion and nature at the University of Florida— analyzes the global narratives that Earth First! employs. He starts out his essay by exploring the integral link between narrative – that is, the stories we tell ourselves—and how these inform our worldview and motivate us to act morally and question the care we show for the earth and for other beings. He then moves on to note the success-and-material-prosperity-mentality and ideology that the U.S. fronts, when, in reality, such technological “advances”, like hydro-electric dams, actually displace certain peoples, while other “successes” like the multilateral aid given poor people, can often times actually in a cyclical bottom-up way, exacerbate their situation, which in both cases only further fuels ecological destruction. When speaking of the dominant narratives that opaquely inform many views in the U.S. (as in displacing the truth for a fiction), he reminds me of Catherine Keller, and her view on the importance of understanding the agenda that creates and perpetuates these narratives— which I will explore later in this essay. Taylor explains the importance of listening to “outsider voices” (13). Of course, one such “outside voice” is none other than Earth First!. Further, Taylor provides an interpretation of the fundamental moral, ecological, and political claims voiced by members of the Earth First! Movement. The purpose of his chapter is to understand the perceptions behind, and claims made by, Earth First!. Dave Foreman, Earth First!’s founder, if you recall, suggested that “ecological resistance is an evolutionary expression of self-defense, a necessary adaptation for reharmonizing the human and the nonhuman worlds” (15). This narrative reinforces and validates Earth First!’s first pillar: a moral obligation to stop ecological destruction and a legitimate means to do so. Earth First!’s moral claim is that nonhuman animal life is valuable for its own sake; not as a means to end, but as in an end in itself. Every species has intrinsic worth, and should be able to fulfill this purpose. By this line of reasoning, human life is not any more valuable than the life of a bacteria, fungi or virus. This moral imperative is the essence of deep ecology.

Taylor points out that most Earth First!ers blame the dominate monotheistic religions of the west for igniting and fueling anthropocentrism, which was the main cause of ecological destruction. Something which both Moore and Keller would agree with. However, what propels Earth First!ers, is their own spiritual experiences with nature which persuade them of the sacred web of interconnectedness between all lifeforms. The urgency in Earth First!ers argument can be seen in the following statement: “we are in the midst of an unprecedented, anthropogenic extictincton crisis, and consequently, many ecosystems are presently collapsing” (16). This second pillar of Earth First!’s ethics legitimizes a call for militancy. Without this claim there needn’t be a basis for urgency, or for the members of Earth First! to risk their lives for their deep ecological moral sentiments. This ecological analysis poses the naturalistic argument between human/ nature relations, between value and fact, between what is and what ought to be. The crux of Earth First!’s political claim, and third pillar, is that either the democracy of the U.S. is a pseudo-democracy thwarted by corrupt economic power and big government, or else it is a half-sham clouded by corporate power, and pernicious human attitudes  that it cannot respond as quickly as needed to counteract the forlorn climatic-extinction catastrophe. By drawing on this third pillar, Earth First! can fully rationalize and justify its political actions,  “By asserting either that democratic procedures never existed or that they have broken down, or that they camouflage domination, these activists argue that illegal tactics are morally justifiable” (17).  The gravity of these claims make political and militant tactics morally necessary. Thus, these deep-seeded ecological moral perceptions combined with urgency and the above political analysis enjoin to form the radicalism of Earth First!’s ideology. Earth First!ers also acknowledge that even outside of anthropocentrism, androcentrism, patriarchy and human hierarchy play a role in the ecodestruction. Thus between these three related forms of domination: patriarchy, hierarchy, and anthropentrism, the natural world is dominated, subjugated and oppressed. This domination must be thwarted if humans are to once again harmonize their pathways with nature. Ecological education, spiritual awakening and paramount, structural political change must occur in order for there to be a reharmonization of life on earth. This necessarily requires deep ecological actions and perceptions. Taylor points out that it easy to be swept away in narratives of good vs. evil— where good ultimately triumphs and there is a universal “edenic harmony” among all of the created order (25). For groups like Earth First! This romanticism is especially potent. Taylor mentions this is why it is especially important to understand these narratives, the perceptions that fuel them, and the political, moral and ecological consequences which inevitably result.

In a similar fashion to Taylor, Jay McDaniel, a process theologian, compares three distinct stories to really get at a narrative that can account for the religious, and spiritual dimensions of a spiritual-laden ecological movement like Earth First!. He gives an account of a biblical history of creation, a “new” story of creation and a more pantheistic story of creation with the purpose of fusing the two into the third so that modern Christians might have as an example, a means with which to embrace an ecological way of life, and identify their place in the cosmos.  McDaniel writes of an embodied Shalom; which is more than just peace, in the deep sense. It is the absence of violence and the fullness of life. This, he sees, as the pinnacle, the heart, of  human consciousness for, and love towards, the earth. McDaniel, like the others before him, criticizes anthropocentricism, and sees humans as part of the tapestry of life with all of nature— not apart from it. He believes Christians have a duty to the earth: to protect and care for nature. He also recognizes that a sense of connectedness with the earth and life itself is an essential characteristic of Christian spirituality. He argues that Christian narrative shapes Christian consciousness. These stories aren’t just stories about the past or how the universe came into existence, but they are also stories about the present and the future. These inherited stories have been functional since the time of our hunter and gather ancestors, these stories have served a purpose, and given context to the hearer’s relationship to the cosmos. But since the time of Descartes these stories have become dysfunctional. (In this way he reminds me of Moore quoting Derrida and citing the human-animal divide as the cause of much of the ecological destruction). The first story explained by McDaniel but developed by the ecotheologian, Thomas Berry, depicts creation as equal with nature and describes it in four evolutionary phases: the cosmic phase, in which elementary particles formed, the geological phase, in which the solar system was developed, the biological phase in which the earth came into existence, and the human phase, in which the rise of consciousness came into being. This story has a kind of scientific plausibility. The second story he explicates is the biblical history narrative of creation which explains that genesis can no longer reasonably guide Christians toward how to live responsibly and in accord with nature. He explains that in the opening of creation in Genesis, there was a primal harmony among humans, animals and the earth. He calls this a primordial goodness, where all created things dwelt in harmony. After humans sinned, this harmony and primordial goodness among all created order was disrupted. Violence, thus emerged. According to McDaniel, God didn’t give up on creation altogether, but planted a seed In Israel’s heart for a universal salvation in which all creation would be reconciled in  a “new heaven and a new earth” (134). The first story, the new story of creation, sees violence as a natural process in which humans participate, the second one as indicative of a fall. Both of these stories function in North American society to promote ecological responsibility. McDaniel, however, proposes a new approach where he combines both of these narratives into a novel synthesis in which primal harmony is meant for humans here and now in order to enter into solidarity with all of nature. For McDaniel, a process theologian, this pantheistic worldview is just what is needed to bridge the creation story, with contemporary ecological and social problems and ultimately work towards a goal of salvaging the earth and creation: “pantheism provides a way of linking an eschatological approach to the biblical story with an internalization of the new story” (137). Pantheism isn’t’ a story, but a way of thinking about the earth, nature and God. He explains that his approach is different from the pantheism expressed in the strict sense which necessarily implies an absolute equation of God and creation. Process pantheism is an ecological way of thinking about God when everything in creation is distinguished but yet is in God, but God in this way isn’t limited to creation. If one thinks about how a venn diagram operates and if they were to draw a circle around creation— that is all of nature, the earth, animals and humans, “God” as such, would be outside of this, but the creation-circle would necessarily be included in the “God” circle.  McDaniel continues on to say that if end-time language contributes to the quest of humans to conquer the earth, then that language is problematic. This language of course is the result of a limited and narrow worldview. The end then, for McDaniel, is a destination in which all things, including violence against the earth, is reconciled. Heaven then, is understood as the ongoing life of the universe back into the earth. So that the end of creation, of life itself, is a continuous source of new beginning, and McDaniel says that we contribute to these new beginnings by contributing to the ongoing end. So that the end is itself a “Holy beginning,” an end that is always beginning: much like the four-step logic of Buddhist philosophy. McDaniel closes his argument in favor of his pantheistic approach by reiterating his premise, that taking care of the earth is a continuing care of the “new heaven.”

 

In his essay, Earth Based Religion and Spirituality, Bron Taylor, whose work I’ve already illustrated above, tries to understand and analyze Earth First!’s spiritual dimensions: that is, the intersection between the ecological and the religious. Both accepting of pagan beliefs and at the same time critical of earthen-spiritual and religious beliefs, Traylor points out how Earth First!’s Dave Foreman believes this spiritualty is much related to the anthropocentrism which is destroying the planet. These beliefs lead to “wondering whether spirituality and ritual might be a fatal human flaw, leading to abstractions, and intellectualizing that distracts us from just being the animals we are” (187). Taylor points out that apocalyptic vigor can be seen in Forman’s discourse as he calls for environmentalist’s resistance.  Foreman holds a strong belief in an imminent ecological end in which humans, in their ego-centered nature, are the creators of the catastrophic downfall. However, like most apocalypticists, he believes this is necessary— beneficial even— to bring about a fundamental change in consciousness, and is a requisite for a re-harmonization for new life on earth.  Further, in his essay Earth and Nature Based Spirituality (part I and II), Bron Taylor, explores both bioregionalism and radical environmentalists approach to ecological issues and human nature. The former emphasizes creating sustainable lifestyles to transform the planet through education and spiritual consciousness. The latter has a more pessimistic view on human nature, and is not optimistic about the possibility that education or ritualizing can dramatically reduce species extinction.

In another one of his essays, Earth’s First’s Religious Radicalism, Taylor seeks to examine the claim that current environmental controversies fundamentally reflect a war between opposing religious worldviews. Specifically, his aim is to draw out the religious dimensions of Earth’s First! Movement by examining the moral and political underpinnings of the movement which are coalesced within spiritual dimensions. Thus he compares Earth First! to any other typical religious movement and tradition, and further through the course of his essay garners support for his analysis and claim. He reminds the reader that all religions involve myth, symbol and ritual which cover topics like cosmogony, cosmology, moral anthropology and eschatology— a lot like McDaniel in this regard. Therefore, Earth First!  a “religious movement,” as such,  is no different than any other, and possesses each of these elements. He notes the connection between religious ethics and their mythical components. He also notes the fluidity and dynamism of religious traditions: many people over the span of many years interpret scripture differently, and perform differently the myths, rituals and rites of theses religious traditions. However, certain fundamental beliefs and values make unity possible and move diverse religious movements into tradition. As mentioned previously, all four of these elements characteristic of religious traditions, can be seen in Earth First!. He brings up a letter that was left by the bomber of Judi Bari, who was on her way to a rally to defend the Red Woods in California when her car exploded, “I AM THE LORD’S AVENGER” the note said and Genesis 1:26 was signed below. Taylor argues that this letter illustrates how such extreme spiritual values can motivate this kind of atrocity. He also notes the critical importance that Lynn White’s article (1967) regarding western religious movements like Judaism and Christianity, have in fueling anthropocentricism and anti-nature tendencies and have bestowed humans permission to dominate nature. White’s article had a substantial impact on Earth First! founder, Dave Foreman. In speaking on the origins of ecological destruction he has said, ”our problem is a spiritual crisis” (187). Thus White’s letter, as noted by Taylor, is “an epistle for spiritual reform” (186). Though many Earth First!ers reject organized religion, many are motivated by a deep spiritual connection to nature. Many are motivated by an ecological consciousness, a deep, sacred, overwhelming connection with all of life. This deep ecology, came through the Darwinian discovery of evolution taught in the ecological sciences. The name, as such, came into conscious thought in the early 1980s. If all species evolved from the same source as evolution teaches us they did, then the anthropocentric underpinnings are entirely futile and hold no weight, along with the idea that man has “dominion over the earth.” However, the argument that evolutionary cosmology displaces human beings as the center of the universe, and levels the playing field for humans, animals and nature, leaves one question unanswered: where does value lie? Taylor believes this is why so much spirituality gets poured into the Earth First! movement: this question needs to be answered and with evolution as the fundamental axiom, this question is still left empty and unfulfilled. Some kind of spirituality is necessarily required to form the basis for valuing the evolutionary process. Christopher Manes, a philosopher and member of Earth First! grounds deep ecology in “the profound spiritual attachment people have to nature”(188). The belief that all life is sacred and interconnected, informs the visions and beliefs of the Earth First! movement, whether they consider themselves religious or not.

Shying away, again, specifically from Earth First to a broader level of ecoexamination and apocalyptic discourse more generally,  Catherine Keller, an ecofeminist, links the imminent population apocalypse to the oppressive religious structures that have historically maintained poverty and sexism—specifically patriarchy and colonialism.  That’s a tough blow. But she isn’t the first to make the argument. Many ecologists— even Stephen Moore has made a similar argument. She then compares these to the structures present in the first century Book of Revelation. The four horseman of the 21st century she names: population, economic, militarism, and environment. She believes there is reason to fear an eco-apocalypse, but that there is reason to hope. Keller uses an example of Jesus to make her argument on counter-apocalypticism. She sees Jesus not as an apocalyptic prophet professing a literal end, but rather as a prophet professing a more subtle eschatology: a new way of life.  She postulates that he disavowed the patriarchy present in his day, so she suggests salvation may be found in “waking up” and “preparing” to rid oneself of the comfort and security one currently holds. She denotes this spiritual awakening as a kind of counter-apocalypse, in much the same way that she frames the historical Jesus’ counter-culture message. This sense of urgency doesn’t foresee a future “doomsday” at all, but is a dynamism that is actually already present in “communities of resistance and solidarity.” This is a green ecumenicity in which the social shalom, or realm of God tares itself away from anthropocentricism. She advocates for a counter-apocalypse centered around meaningful, egalitarian relationships, communal flourishing, sustainability and care for the earth and for all peoples. This counter-apocalyptic vision is what she calls the “kingdom of God.”

In another of her essays, Eschatology, Ecology, and a Green Ecumenacy, Keller makes the simple yet, bold claim, that if apocalyptic discourse has become casual, then the “casual has become apocalyptic” (326). In this essay she explores the link between the ecological crisis and its symptomology, or rather that which alerts, and gives credence to its urgency. She weaves this in throughout her piece in an interesting metaphor: that of variable, unpredictable weather. Fundamentally, her essay considers the connection between ecology and eschatology.  She explains that the derangement in the weather patterns might give us hints to Christian’s eschatological missions to life. Not unconnected, she says that interpreting the earth and the sky (metaphorically) is an integral part of interpreting the present time: she states emphatically that the discourse on the end of the world has been colored by the recent capacity to bring the world to an end, that is, a “manmade apocalypse” (328).  This view on the unpredictability of human nature and the ability to make the apocalypse a reality, validates the urgency of her message. She suggests that the meaning of eschatology must take into account this green apocalypse or else it will become a futile means at the end of the second millennium. Therefore, her central thesis of this work is that a responsible Christian eschatology must fully encapsulate an ecologic eschatology. This isn’t a suggestion, as much as a warning.  These can therefore not be divorced. This novel way of looking at Christian eschatology must challenge Christians to take care of the earth, to which Keller has believed they have been called by God to do. For Keller, this ecological crisis is a social justice issue, a matter of great moral importance for the church. Further, she compares the consummation and self-indulgent activity of one-fourth of the population to a metaphor of divine judgment upon human guardianship of the earth: one-fourth rules in power and luxury destroying nature at their whim, while three-fourths live in poverty and oppression.  She says responsible theology recycles its own resources: so rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, she suggests adding a necessary component— an earth-bound eschatology. She says this idea of man’s dominion over earth is unnatural, where dominion has come to mean that which is dominated is subjugated. She says the ambiguous language used in Genesis to ordain man’s dominion over nature which was meant to parallel God’s dominion over creation, justifies human consumption and irresponsibility in the “name of responsibility” and thus, she asks, “is it perhaps such surrender of stewardship of greed which necessitates a “new creation” by the same all-controlling creator?” (330). In other words, does the permission granted humans by God reinforce, and perpetuate this apocalypticism in a self (or God) fulfilling way? Keller says that the energy put into unearthly eschatology is immoral because it causes people to focus on the world to come instead of caring for the present one. She says that this distraction of care away from the earth compliments the destruction of the earth. Thus, she points out that it isn’t so peculiar that there has been a failure on Christians’ part to develop sustainable practices when they have been inherently shaped by this worldview. There needn’t be any endlessly renewable resources if the world is coming to an end anyway. For Keller, the imminent end of the world might be the height of self-fulfilling prophecy. She then asks the question of why this is so. Why is it that Christians— through the ages— have been so focused on an afterlife— a world apart from this one— rather than the world in the here and now? How did eschatology become “nothing but a material means to an immortal end?” (331). Drawing on Marxism, she claims this alienation, and materialism is a symptom of systematic suffering, where the self can find no immediate relief. This fundamental suffering isn’t unlike that which fueled the apocalyptic discourse in the 1^st century by means of the usual characters of oppression, subjugation and suffering— it is one and the same.  On this topic of existential suffering  in the contemporary world, she says, “Viewed from the vantage point of late U.S. modernity, we cannot but note that the symptoms seem to merge with the cause: that the construction of salvation as supernatural has helped to bring about the very destruction of nature from which the earth now needs saving” (332). She makes the claim that Christian eschatology is actually responsible, at least in part, for the current ecological crisis— an incredibly self-reflective, novel and integral view.  Thus, it isn’t just that the current ecological crisis might one day lead to an end, but she proposes that Christian’s beliefs about the end have actually shaped the contemporary crisis. Moore also eluded to this self-fulfilling prophecy in his essay, Ecotherology, when he depicted the “New Heaven” as a vacant shopping mall with one stream and one tree: a fashion trend that has already begun to take root in our current world.  Keller says that the new world Jesus speaks of in Matt. 23:37 laments the destructiveness of this world, but does not disdain the earth as a futile challenge as does the modernist view. The cynicism in her irony cuts through the hyper-americanized, “progress-optimism” of current ultra-modernist utopianism: “why clean up our home when we can make a new one?” (333). She claims this line of reasoning brings to the heavens its ideology by means of modern colonialist-millennialism. In other words, US culture is conquering and inaugurating its kingdom in heaven in the same way we threw out the Native Americans and conquered countries like the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Ouch. This idea is also paralleled in Moore’s essay Hypermasculinty and Divinity. Is the U.S. just another Rome? Quite likely. Keller distinguishes two separate, but contemporary and prevalent eschatologies: one is a modernist eschatology, which represents the status-quo of materialist thinking in the U.S. This ideology doesn’t criticize the problem of ecology, but instead the persons who bring the problem to the forefront. These are the people who would rather just pretend (or perhaps they don’t even have to pretend?) that the problem doesn’t exist. Both groups of ideological eschatologies described by Keller: colonization of a new world (because of a destruction of this one) and the second the “status quo” eschatological group— ignore the real apocalypse. Both of these see the end as a bi-product of progress. Keller agrees, “Indeed, it is progress defined as the unimpeded, indeed accelerated, “conquest” of terrestrial and extraterrestrial nature that must yield the solutions to present problems”(335). Keller hopes by educating pastors, theologians, and those in leadership roles in the church on the connection between ecology, economics, and justice, a greater shift might be made away from man’s conquest over earth. As Keller points out, the masculine language of conquest is no accident. The dominant and aggressive tinge of masculinity has required the subordination of nature. Keller asks the reader if there can be a greening of theology. If so, she concludes that there needs to be a development of a theological practice of recycling, which will necessarily stem from an ecological discourse. This necessarily requires getting rid of toxic patriotism, and late modernist-capitalist agendas and by renewing and recycling those components left— this should enhance life.  Therefore, eschatology itself requires re-structuring, and re-composing. Keller says that hope of fullness of life, or shalom is not meant for life after death but its meant for now in the “fullness of a community healed from alienation from nature and culture” (337). Keller later compares the economic situation of the destroyers of the earth in Revelation (Rome or “Babylon”) to the devastation of nature. Keller says the job of Christians isn’t to play God, but to live mindfully and consciously in accord with nature, facing up to the man-mad apocalypse; taking responsibility for their actions. She ends with a call of conversion for Christians, “[we need] to liturgically sort through our garbage, to make choices based on awareness of the sinister and/or beautiful web of connections between our food, the weather, our starving and tortured fellow humans, women’s bodies and the homeless— this multi-dimensional work of recycling releases new ways of being together, of consoling and delighting each other in our edginess” (344).

In the last part of my analysis on the apocalyptic discourse of ecological movements, I cite Derek Wall In his essay, Culture, Ideology and the Anti-Roads Movement, which analyzes the fundamental framing methods and ideology that shape and power the agenda of political social movements like Earth first!. Wall, like Taylor and Keller, believes that the angst with which Earth First! operates, is marked by mythologized and dramatized ideology which unmasks the ambiguous abstractions to show an ecological reality than can be understood and diagnosed. Wall says that the frame-realignment model has been enacted to show how culture can aid movement growth. Therefore, movements act as “signifying agents” working to formulate and structure meaning so as to inspire the kind of action-creating ideology that Earth First! employs (143). However, against this, Wall argues that movements like Earth First! are motivated by political belief and needn’t construct fancy forms of ideology simply as a means of resource mobilization. Though Earth First! may frame its opposition in such a way as to garner support and resources, their ultimate goal is combat the fundamental evil of ecodestruction, itself. Despite this ultimate goal, Wall points out that Earth First! has taken part in the three core-framing processes beholden to typical political social movements: 1.) diagnosing a problem, 2.) advancing the prognosis, and 3.) motivating others to action through ideological frames.  However, he notes that eventually this ideological frame, given new activists’ participation in the movement, had shifted dramatically.  All the activists whom Wall interviewed identified with the deep-seeded belief that there is an imminent ecological catastrophe approaching which has been made manifest through the symptomology of loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, greenhouse warming, among others symptoms. Also, deep ecology has been emphasized as a diagnostic frame centering on the intrinsic worth of all species rather than solely on the consequences of human environmental destruction. Wall continues to speak of the ways in which Earth First!’s ideology is framed by ecofeminists, anarchists and others coming from specific worldviews and from advocates of social justice movements like sex and gender equality, and human rights. These different frames represent the many voices of Earth First! “variously attacking industry, the state, reductionalist philosophies and overpopulation as causes of ecological and social ills” (145). Among these different views, each attributes their angst to specific triggers: industrialization, capitalism, and the state. Wall identifies the importance of these motivational ideological frames which serve to root vibrant social factions— like deep ecology— to wider, more universally-shared goals like human emancipation.  It’s not difficult to see the force of ideology behind movements like Earth First! when wide social issues like human flourishing are engulfed within the ecological frame: such polemic strategies make it difficult to ignore the further pressing issue of salvation for all life. Thus Wall’s argument elicits an integral component of ideological- framing that stresses the need for direct action. From deep ecology to more broad forms of social justice, in this way, Earth First! stresses the deep connection between the social and the environmental. The connection between perceived environmental issues and its reference to social categories, like that of culture, economic change, social class and state power, is integral to understanding its origins. These social functions situate the origins of the movement by igniting its perception of inequality and oppression which fuel its momentum. Again, this not unlike the culture and sociality of the 1^st century world, in which the book of revelation was written. Understanding both the origins and perpetuations of perceptions, beliefs, stories, and myths that inform the discourse of ecoapocalyptic groups, like Earth First, give us a glimmer into the dynamism, fluidity, and intransigence to change with which such religious fervor these unavailing ideologies possess.

Over the course of this essay I have analyzed and explored the many diverse perceptions on the relevant, contemporary issue of ecological destruction and the tethering apocalyptic discourse it necessarily encapsulates. I have specifically explored the apocalyptic ideology of the ecomilitant group, Earth First! and illustrated the diverse analyses of theologians, ecologists, EF! members, and ecofeminists which have individually sought to fully understand and interpret the apocalyptic frame in which the movements’ discourse, and philosophy reside. I have explored the connection between the spiritual and the ecological; the religious, and the militant: such connections no doubt, are inextricably bound to one another— such that one cannot be experienced fully in the absence of the other. Where one exists, the possibility of its double, must too.

I leave the reader with one question to ponder: is it possible that the ecological can be divorced from the spiritual?  And if not, does it come as any surprise that ecodestruction fully embodies the spirit of apocalypticism and holds within arms’ length, a vision of an eschatological end? As Catherine Keller has noted rightly, yet simply, “apocalypse is being colored green”(326). However, I must mention, though, that I don’t think a moment in history has ever existed in which one could point to deep ecology, and yet not singularly identify its dignified, self-righteous counterpart: apocalypticism. The passion, which fuels both, I believe, is one and the same: the analysis I have just expounded encodes this ever so translucently. Thus, the dynamism between deep ecology and apocalypticsm is a paradoxical, two-fold truth: an esoteric, singular reality.

 

Annotated Bibilography:

1. Forman, Dave. Earth First!. In Earth Ethics. Edited by James P. Sterba. New Jersey: University of Notre dame.

 

Earth First! member, Dave Forman, discusses the philosophy and ideology of the radical ecological movement: Earth first!. Its discourse is nuanced intricately with apocalyptic motifs, the goal to “question the system, help develop a new world view; a biocentric paradigm, an earth philosophy” (347). The central foundation is its avocation for wildlife preservation and above all biocentrism, or equality with nature. Earth First! accuses big, shotty government of selfishly and anthropocentrically destroying the earth by means of industrial civilization, deforestation, and loss of species habitat. To combat this, Earth first! calls for radical action and members employ tactics such as monkeywrenching (destroying industrial machinery), protests, and civil disobedience  to bring about specific ends— that of protecting Mother earth. Though such actions against the corporate giants of America and the whole of western civilization, ultimately may be perceived as pyrrhic endeavors to some, Forman holds to the belief that for those who love the earth, they can do no less. The sense of urgency and signification of ecological and catastrophic imminence present in Earth First’s discourse, is what propels members to take direct, immediate action.

2. Keller Catherine. 1995. A Christian Response to the Population Apocalypse. In Population, Consumption and the Environment: Religious and Secular Responses. Edited by Harold Coward. New York. State University Press.

 

Keller links the imminent population apocalypse to the oppressive religious structures that have historically maintained poverty and sexism, specifically patriarchy and colonialism. She then compares these to the structures present in the first century Book of Revelation. The four horseman of the 21st century are named: population, economic, militarism, and environment. She believes there is reason to fear an eco-apocalypse, but there is reason to hope. Keller uses an example of Jesus to make her argument on counter-apocalypticism. She sees Jesus not as an apocalyptic prophet professing a literal end, but rather as a prophet professing a more subtle eschatology: a new way of life.  She postulates that he disavowed the patriarchy present in his day, and thus suggests salvation may be found in “waking up” and “preparing” to rid oneself of the comfort and security one currently holds. She denotes this spiritual awakening as a kind of counter-apocalypse, much like she expects Jesus’ was. This sense of urgency doesn’t foresee a future doomsday, but is actually already present in “communities of resistance and solidarity.” This is a green ecumenicity in which the social shalom, or realm of God tares itself away from anthropocentricism. She advocates for a counter-apocalypse centered around meaningful egalitarian relationships, communal flourishing, sustainability and care for all people. This counter-apocalyptic vision is what she calls the “kingdom of God.”

 

3. Keller, Catherine. 1994. Eschatology, Ecology, and a Green Ecumenacy. In Restructuring Christian Theology. Edited by Rebecca Chopp & Mark Lewis Taylor. Minneapolis. Fortress Press.

 

“Apocalypse is being colored green” (326). Catherine Keller believes fervently that if apocalyptic discourse has become casual, then the “casual has become apocalyptic” (326). In her essay she explores the link between the ecological crisis and its symptomology, or that which alerts, and gives credence to its urgency. She weaves this in throughout her piece in an interesting metaphor: that of variable, unpredictable weather. Fundamentally, her essay considers the connection between ecology and eschatology.  She explains that the derangement in the weather patterns might give us hints to Christian’s eschatological missions to life. Not unconnected, she says that interpreting the earth and the sky is an integral part of interpreting the present time. She says the discourse of “the end of the world” has been colored by the recent capacity to bring the world to an end, that is, a “manmade apocalypse” (328).  This view on the unpredictability of human nature and the ability to make the apocalypse a reality validates the urgency of her message.

She suggests that the meaning of eschatology must take into account this green apocalypse or else it will become a futile means at the end of the second millennium. Therefore, her central thesis of this work is that a responsible Christian eschatology must fully encapsulate an ecologic eschatology. This isn’t a suggestion, as much as a warning.  These can therefore not be divorced. This novel way of looking at Christian eschatology must challenge Christians to take care of the earth, to which Keller has believed they have been called by God to do. For Keller, this ecological crisis is a social justice issue, a matter of great moral importance for the church.

She compares the consummation and self-indulgent activity of one-fourth of the population to a metaphor of divine judgment upon human guardianship of the earth. One-fourth rules in power and luxury destroying nature at their whim, while three-fourths live in poverty and oppression.  She says responsible theology recycles its own resources: so rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, she suggests adding a necessary component: an earth-bound eschatology. She says this idea of man’s dominion over earth is unnatural, where dominion has come to mean that which is dominated is subjugated. She says the ambiguous language used in Genesis to ordain man’s dominion over nature which was meant to parallel God’s dominion over creation, justifies human consumption and irresponsibility in the “name of responsibility” and is it “perhaps such surrender of stewardship of greed which necessitates a “new creation” by the same all-controlling creator?” (330). In other words, does the permission granted humans by God reinforce, and perpetuate this apocalypticism in a self (or God) fulfilling way? Keller notes that the energy put into unearthly eschatology is immoral because it causes people to focus on the world to come instead of caring for the present one. She says this distraction away from taking care of the earth compliments the destruction of the earth. Thus, she points out that it isn’t so peculiar that there has been a failure on Christians’ part to develop sustainable practices when they have been inherently shaped by this worldview. There needn’t be any endlessly renewable resources if the world is coming to an end anyway. For Keller, the imminent end of the world might be the pinnacle of self-fulfilling prophecy. She then poses the question of why it is that Christians through the ages have been so focused on an afterlife— a world apart from this one— rather than the world in the here and now. How did eschatology become “nothing but a material means to an immortal end?” (331). Drawing on Marxism, she claims this alienation, and materialism is a symptom of systematic suffering, where the self can find no immediate relief. This fundamental suffering isn’t unlike that which fueled the apocalyptic discourse in the 1^st century by means of the usual characters of oppression, subjugation and suffering— it is one and the same.  On the existential suffering’s symptomology in the contemporary world, she says, “Viewed from the vantage point of late U.S. modernity, we cannot but note that the symptoms seem to merge with the cause: that the construction of salvation as supernatural has helped to bring about the very destruction of nature from which the earth now needs saving” (332). She makes the claim that Christian eschatology is actually responsible, at least in part, for the current ecological crisis— an incredibly self-reflective, novel and integral view.  Thus, it isn’t just that the current ecological crisis might one day lead to an end, but she proposes that Christian’s beliefs about the end have actually shaped the contemporary crisis. Moore also eluded to this self-fulfilling prophecy in his essay, Ecotherology, when he depicted the “New Heaven” as a vacant shopping mall with one stream and one tree: a fashion trend that we has already begun to take root in our current world.  Keller says the new world Jesus speaks of in Matt. 23:37 laments the destructiveness of this world, but does not disdain the earth as a futile challenge as does the modernist view. The cynicism in her irony cuts through the hyper-Americanized, “progress-optimism” of current ultra-modernist utopianism: “why clean up our home when we can make a new one?” (333). She claims this line of reasoning brings to the heavens its ideology by means of modern colonialist-millennialism. In other words, US culture is conquering and inaugurating its kingdom in heaven in the same way we threw out the Native Americans and conquered countries like the Philippines and Puerto Rico. Ouch. This idea is also parallel’s Moore’s in his essay Hypermasculinty and Divinity. Is the US just another Rome? Quite likely. Keller point out another modernist eschatology, which represents the status-quo of materialist thinking in the U.S. This ideology doesn’t criticize the problem of ecology, but the persons who bring the problem to the forefront. These are the people who would rather just pretend (or perhaps they don’t even have to pretend?) the problem doesn’t exist. Both groups of ideological eschatologies described by Keller: colonization of a new world (because of a destruction of this one) and the second the “status quo” eschatological group— ignore the real apocalypse. Both of these see the end as a bi-product of progress. Keller agrees, “Indeed, it is progress defined as the unimpeded, indeed accelerated, “conquest” of terrestrial and extraterrestrial nature that must yield the solutions to present problems”(335). Keller hopes by educating pastors, theologians, and those in leadership roles in the church on the connection between ecology, and economics, and justice, the greater the shift might be away from man’s conquest over earth. As Keller points out, the masculine language of conquest is no accident. The dominant and aggressive of masculinity has required the subordination of nature.

Keller asks if there can be a greening of theology. If so, she concludes that there needs to be a development of a theological practice of recycling, which will stem from an ecological discourse. This necessarily requires getting rid of toxic patriotism, and late modernist-capitalist agendas and renew and recycle those components lefts that will enhance life.  Therefore, eschatology itself requires re-structuring, re-composing. Keller says that hope of fullness of life, or shalom is not for life without death but for “fullness of a community healed from alienation from nature and culture” (337). Keller later compares the economic situation of the destroyers of the earth in Revelation (Babylon) to the devastation of nature. Keller says the job of Christians isn’t to play God, but to live mindfully and consciously in accord with nature, facing up to the man-mad apocalypse; taking responsibility for our actions. She ends with a call of conversion for Christians, “[we need] to liturgically sort through our garbage, to make choices based on awareness of the sinister and/or beautiful web of connections between our food the weather, our starving and tortured fellow humans, women’s bodies and the homeless— this multi-dimensional work of recycling releases new ways of being together , of consoling and delighting each other in our edginess” (344).

4. Lee, Martha. 1997. The millennial Ideology of Earth First!. In Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem: Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements. Edited by Thomas Robbins and Susan Palmer, London: Routledge.

Lee explains the foundation and ideology of the ecological-apocalyptic group Earth First! Earth First! Began as a radical ecological group who was initially fueled by a core millenarian ideology, but has since expelled this view and drifted into two separate factions. A fundamental precept of millenarian ideology is that of anthropocentrism; this is the view that humans are superior to all of nature and are free to determine their own course: be that one of destruction or of repentance and change. However, one faction of Earth First! has changed its millenarian beliefs to reflect only apocalyptic beliefs and has come to see humans as equally aligned to the same plane as other natural species (not superior to) and thus, just as vulnerable and susceptible to errors begetted from animal instincts, and unlikely to change behavior. This group advocates for both bio-centrism and biodiversity. The other faction, a more humanistic group, believes in the betterment of the human species (humans can change), and thus preserves the millenarian ideology. At its origins, Earth First! believed that the greed, egoism, and demoralization of big government, was destroying American society and the environment. Here we see the fuel which blazes the fire of apocalyptic dialectical discourse. Earth First!’s philosophy tackled this perception of an “ultimate evil” head-on by creating a new political community and offering a simple solution to present-day crisis: moderate consumption and a respect for all of nature.  The “apocalypse” for Earth First!ers is the inevitable extinction of entire species and habitats from the growth of industrial civilization that will threaten the very foundations of life. The offenders are corrupt and “big” government— not so dissimilar from the Roman Empire in the Prophet John’s day when he recorded his apocalyptic visions in revelation.

Lee, Martha. 1995. The Resurgence of millennialism. In Earth First!: Environmental Apocalypse. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

Lee discusses the ideology of the two emerging factions of Earth First! at length, and the eventual death of the original biocentric movement.  The two factions among Earth first! are the millenarian faction, which argued on behalf of social justice and anthropocentric social issues and the apocalyptic group, which argued for biocentrism and wilderness. The social justice faction’s ideology promotes the idea that humans are good, and out of ignorance have been misled to commit destruction against the environment. There is a kind of humanist ideal of transformation and change present in this faction’s ideology. They believe with education, effort, and activism, they can bring people to awareness and help to slow the progression of current environmental destruction. Such efforts aim to ultimately preserve the human species.   The apocalyptic biocentric group, however, chooses to not de-elevate human beings to the level of other animal species, and suggests that the apocalypse is imminent, but humans may or may not survive to be a part of the new millennium, and that’s okay.

6. Lorentezen, Louis Ann. Phallic Millennialism and Radical Environmentalism: The Apocalyptic Vision of Earth First!. In The Year 2000: Essays on the End. Edited by Charles Strozier and Michael Flinn. New York: University Press.

Earth First!s ecomiliarism is  propelled by an apocalyptic vision of eschatological ecological collapse, cites Lorentzen. She reiterates the Earth First! premise that this ecological collapse is inevitable; brought on by human technological devastation and will result in the end of history. However there is hope of ecological balanced future— that evolution may resume its natural course. If humans survive, they can re-establish primal systems of hunting and gathering that are compatible with an evolutionary future. This sense of “new Earth” parallels that in the book of Revelation.  Though there is a pessimistic outlook on the current ecological condition of the world, there is a more positive eschatological vison that proceeds this imminent downfall. This sense of urgency further fuels their perception of the current destructive anthropocentric paradigm. Earth first! Members believe the current ecological crisis, a thought common to general apocalyptic discourse, is the result of a certain evils: patriarchy, hierarchy, anthropocentricism. By assigning a value-judgment to these human capabilities, members are able to justify their own actions as rightful and good when they fight back: “locating evil presumes that there are enemies who embody evil and against whom one must battle. Locating evil also presumes the possibility of salvation or an escape from evil” (147). Earth First’s eschatology is used to justify their eco-defense mechanisms: ecotage, and monkey-wrenching. The historic discourse of power, domination and hierarchy that is implicit in apocalypticism is nuanced even in ecological movements such as Earth first!. Lorentzen also gives an ecofeminist approach when she tackles Earth First!’s phallic masculinity and the gendered rhetoric used by Earth First!: One Earth first! Member noted the inextricable tie between ecology and gender, “If we want to save the planet, we must address root causes like patriarchy and the destructive exploitative society…..we can’t separate it” (151). Subverting this cause is the idea that “Mother Earth” must be saved from the continuous savagery of rape that humans commit against her and the ideal patron saints to conquer and to protect her are men. Lorentzen argues that unless this rhetoric of patriarchy and domination changes, both women and the earth will continue to be exploited.

7. McDaniel, Jay. 1994. Emerging Options in Ecological Christianity: The New Story, the Biblical Story, and Pantheism. In Ecological Prospects. Edited by Christopher Key Chapple. New York: State University.

 

McDaniel compares three stories: a biblical history of creation, a new creation story and a more pantheistic story of creation so that modern Christians might embrace an ecological way of life, and identify their place in the cosmos.  McDaniel writes of an embodied Shalom; which is more than just peace, in the deep sense. It is the absence of violence and the fullness of life. McDaniel criticizes anthropocentricism, and sees humans as part of the tapestry of life with all of nature— not apart from it. He believes Christians have a duty to the earth: to protect and care for nature. He also recognizes that a sense of connectedness with the earth and life itself is an essential characteristic of Christian spirituality. He argues that Christian narrative shapes Christian consciousness. These stories aren’t just stories about the past or how the universe came into existence, but are also stories about the present and the future. These inherited stories have been functional since the time of our hunter and gather ancestors. These stories have served a purpose, given context to the hearer’s relationship to the cosmos, but since the time of Descartes these stories have become dysfunctional. (In this way he reminds me of Moore quoting Derrida and citing the human-animal divide as the cause of much of the ecological destruction, in his essay Ecotherology). The first story explained by McDaniel but developed by the ecotheologian, Thomas Berry, depicts creation as equal with nature and describes it in four evolutionary phases: the cosmic phase, in which elementary particles formed, the geological phase, in which the solar system was developed, the biological phase in which the earth came into existence, and the human phase, in which the rise of consciousness came into being. This story has a kind of scientific plausibility. The second story he explicates is the biblical history narrative of creation which explains that genesis can no longer reasonably guide Christians how to live responsibly in accord with nature. He explains that in the opening of creation in Genesis, there was a primal harmony among humans, animals and the earth. He calls this a primordial goodness, where all created things dwelt in harmony. After humans sinned, this harmony and primordial goodness among all created order was disrupted. Violence, thus emerged. According to McDaniel, God didn’t give up on creation altogether, but planted a seed In Israel’s heart for a universal salvation in which all creation would be reconciled in  a “new heaven and a new earth” (134). The first story, the new story of creation, sees violence as a natural process in which humans participate, the second one as indicative of a fall. Both of these stories function in North American society to promote ecological responsibility. McDaniel proposes a new approach where he combines both of these narratives into a novel synthesis in which primal harmony is meant for humans here and now in order to enter into solidarity with all of nature. For McDaniel, a process theologian, this pantheistic worldview is just what is needed to bridge the creation story, with contemporary ecological and social problems and ultimately work towards a goal of salvaging the earth and creation: “pantheism provides a way of linking an eschatological approach to the biblical story with an internalization of the new story” (137). Pantheism isn’t’ a story, but a way of thinking about the earth, nature and God. He explains that his approach is different from the pantheism expressed in the strict sense which necessarily implies an absolute equation of God and creation. Process pantheism is an ecological way of thinking about God when everything in creation is distinguished but yet is in God, but God in this way isn’t limited to creation. If one thinks about how a Venn diagram operates and if they were to draw a circle around creation— that is all of nature, the earth, animals and humans, “God” as such would be outside of this, but the creation-circle would necessarily be included in the God circle.  McDaniel continues on to say that if end-time language contributes to the quest of humans to conquer the earth, then that language is problematic. This language of course is the result of a limited and narrow worldview. The end then, for McDaniel, is a destination in which all things, including violence against the earth, is reconciled. Heaven then, is understood as the ongoing life of the universe back into the earth. So that the end of creation, of life itself is a continuous source of new beginning, and McDaniel says that we contribute to these new beginnings by contributing to the ongoing end. So that the end is itself a Holy beginning, an end that is always beginning. McDaniel closes his argument in favor of his pantheistic approach by reiterating his axiom, that taking care of the earth is a continuing care of the new heaven.

8. Moore, Stephen. Ecotherology. In Untold Tales From the Book of Revelation. Atlanta: SBL Press.

In Ecotherology, Stephen Moore analyzes contemporary Eco-destruction through the lens of Revelation. With a sense of satire and irony he makes a substantial case for the “new heaven” and “new earth” consisting an empty, hyper-processed, vapid mall-like suite with a “Single stream and a token tree” (225). He says, “I confess to finding this celestial megacity singularly ill-designed to serve as a prophetic counterexample to the contemporary paving over of the planet and the annihilation of plant animal species” (226). Moore addresses both ecological destruction of habitat and the planet. His central aim is to compare non-human animals to those present in the book of revelation. A central question is, are there similarities between the book of revelation’s New Jerusalem and the current ecological conditions of our world? He dives into the area of animality to first address this question. He addresses the anthropomorphism apparent with both animals and the divine in Revelation, but decides to read animal as “animal” for the sake of decoding the human-animal relations present in them. He describes the “beast” in revelation as a monster not fitting into any animal category, and as such is an agreeable image of political despotism.  This is animal is outside the bounds of law. Moore than notes that the Lamb in the book of Revelation, a divine figure, must also be outside and above the bounds of law. He says God and the Lamb are monstrous figures of terror. Moore says all of this to say that Revelation excavates its own dualisms. Moore notes that historically the animal has been seen on the plane of two dichotomies: as innocent, and absolute goodness but also as evil and depraved. Both of these are seen in the book of revelation. Moore describes the interspecies marriage he perceives in the book of Revelation: the lamb and his bride, the holy city of Jerusalem. Present in Moore’s essay are attacks at patriarchy and gender stereotypes. He describes the Lamb of Revelation as a symbol of hegemonic masculinity— a trope for domination. His bride is the ideal wife. Next, Moore addresses the ecological consequences of the lay-out of the New Jerusalem. He says the book of Revelation paints a caricature of what we’re currently doing to our planet now. In keeping with the ideal of grandeur and the lawlessness of Sovereignty, Moore describes the superfluousness of the New Jerusalem. He says,“ the problem for Ecotherology is that the proportions are horribly wrong— but uncannily right if a dystopian vision is needed of where contemporary urban development is headed” (237). Moore depicts the New Jerusalem as a kind of over-sized vacant shopping mall. This anthropocentering; of placing the human above the animal, a phenomenon which came into conscious thought by Descartes, is what is causing the massive onslaught of animal species, and ecology. He mentions Derrida and says that this model of living threatens all animal species. Animals are at first lowered in the book of Revelation: The lamb was slain. But Moore then makes an interesting argument that the relationship between human beings and animals is radically inverted in the book of Revelation: the Lamb has dominion. Though this hierarchy is inverted, it is not deconstructed. Moore says, “Revelation, may be after all an unveiling of ‘what is’ and ‘what must soon take place’ an apocalyptic uncovering of the already present future of the catastrophic theriocidal cultures” (242).

9. Taylor, Bron. 2001. Earth and Nature Based Spirituality (Part 1): From Deep Ecology to Radical Environmentalism. Religion 31: 175-193.

Taylor analyzes earth based religion and spirituality as he tries to understand the movements that inform these. One such movement is none other than Earth First!. Both accepting of pagan beliefs and at the same time critical of earthen-spiritual and religious beliefs, Traylor points out how Earth First!’s Dave Foreman believes this spiritualty is much related to the anthropocentrism which is destroying the planet; these beliefs lead to “wondering whether spirituality and ritual might be a fatal human flaw, leading to abstractions, and intellectualizing that distracts us from just being the animals we are” (187). Taylor points out that apocalyptic vigor can be seen in Forman’s discourse as he calls for environmentalist’s resistance, like monkey-wrenching.  Foreman holds a strong belief in an imminent ecological end in which humans, in their ego-centered nature, are the creators of the catastrophic downfall. However, like most apocalypticists, he believes this is necessary— beneficial even— to bring about a fundamental change in consciousness, and is a requisite for a re-harmonization for new life on earth.

10. Taylor, Bron. 2001. Earth and Nature Based Spirituality (Part II): From Earth First! And Bioregionalism to Scientific Paganism. Religion 31: 225-245.

Taylor explores both bioregionalism and radical environmentalists approach to ecological issues and human nature. The former emphasize creating sustainable lifestyles to transform the planet through education and spiritual consciousness. The latter has a more pessimistic view on human nature, and is not optimistic about the possibility that education or ritualizing can dramatically reduce species extinction.  One of these groups is Earth First!. Their sense of apocalypticism, Taylor cites, helps explain why Earth First!ers place a premium on ecological resistance over lifestyle activism.

11. Taylor, Bron. 1995. Earth First! And Global Narratives of Popular Ecological resistance in Ecological Resistance Movements. Edited by Bron Taylor. New York: State University.

Starts out his essay by exploring the strong link between narrative; that is the stories we tell ourselves and how these inform our worldview and motivate us to act morally and question the care we show for the earth and for other beings. Specifically, he speaks of the ideology of success and material prosperity that the US presents when in reality large technological developments like hydro-electric dams actually displace people, and the multilateral aid given poor people actually exacerbates their situation, which in both cases fuels ecological destruction. When speaking of the dominant narratives that opaquely inform many views in the U.S., displacing the truth for a fiction, he reminds me of Catherine Keller, and the importance of understanding the agenda behind these narratives. He explains the importance of listening to “outsider voices” (13). One such group is Earth First!.

Taylor provides an interpretation of fundamental moral, ecological, and political claims voiced by members of the Earth First! movement. The purpose of this chapter is to understand the perceptions and claims of Earth First!. Dave Foreman, Earth First!’s founder suggested that “ecological resistance is an evolutionary expression of self-defense, a necessary adaptation for reharmonizing the human and the nonhuman worlds” (15). This narrative reinforces and validates Earth First!’s first pillar: a moral obligation to stop ecological destruction and a legitimate means to do so. Earth First!’s moral claim is that nonhuman animal life is valuable for its own sake; not as a means to end, but as In an end to itself. Every species has intrinsic worth, and should be able to fulfill this. By this line of reasoning, human life is not more valuable than the life of a bacteria, fungi or virus. This moral imperative has become known as deep ecology.

Taylor points out that most Earth First!ers blame the dominate monotheistic religions of the west for igniting and fueling anthropocentrism, which was the main cause of ecological destruction. Something which both Moore and Keller would agree with. However, what propels Earth First!ers, is their own spiritual experiences with nature which (convince) them of the sacred web of interconnectedness between all life.

The urgency in Earth First!ers argument can be seen in the following statement: “we are in the midst of an unprecedented, anthropogenic extictincton crisis, and consequently, many ecosystems are presently collapsing” (16). This second pillar of Earth First!’s ethics legitimizes a call for militancy. Without this claim there needn’t be a basis for urgency, or for the member of Earth First! to risk their lives for their deep ecological moral sentiments. This ecological analysis poses the naturalistic argument between human/ nature relations, between value and fact, between what is and what ought to be. The crux of Earth First!’s political claim, and third pillar, is that either the democracy of the U.S. is a pseudo-democracy thwarted by corrupt economic power and big government, or else it a half-sham clouded by corporate power, and pernicious human attitudes  that it cannot respond as quickly as needed to counteract the forlorn climatic extinction catastrophe. By drawing on this third pillar, Earth First! can fully rationalize and justify its political actions,  “By asserting either that democratic procedures never existed or that they have broken down, or that they camouflage domination, these activists argue that illegal tactics are morally justifiable” (17).  The gravity of these claims make political and militant tactics morally necessary. Thus, these deep-seeded ecological moral perceptions combined with urgency and the above political analysis enjoin to form the radicalism of Earth First!’s ideology. Earth First!ers also acknowledge that even outside of anthropocentrism, androcentrism, patriarchy and human hierarchy play a role in the ecodestruction. Thus between these three related forms of domination: patriarchy, hierarchy, and anthropentrism, the natural world is dominated, subjugated and oppressed. This domination must be thwarted if humans are to once again harmonize their pathways with nature. Ecological education, spiritual awakening and (fundamental) political change must occur in order for there to be a reharmonization of life on earth. This necessarily requires deep ecological actions and perceptions.

Taylor points out that it easy to be swept away in narratives of good vs. evil— where good ultimately triumphs and there is a universal “edenic harmony” among all of the created order (25). For groups like Earth First! This romanticism is especially potent. Taylor mentions this is why it is especially important to understand these narratives, the perceptions that fuel them, and the political, moral and ecological consequences of them.

12. Taylor, Bron. 1994. Earth First!’s Religious Radicalism. In Ecological Prospects. Edited by Christopher Key Chapple. New York: State University.

In this essay, Taylor seeks to exaimine the claim that current environmental controversies fundamentally reflect a war between opposing religious worldviews. Specifically, his aim is to draw out the religious dimensions of Earth’s First! Movement by examining the moral and political underpinnings of the movement which are coalesced by spiritual dimensions. Thus he compares Earth First! to any other typical religious movement and tradition and further through the course of his essay garners support for his analysis and claim. He reminds the reader that all religions involve myth, symbol and ritual which cover topics like cosmogony, cosmology, moral anthropology and eschatology. Therefore, Earth First! as a “religious movement,” is no different, and possesses and touches on each of these elements. He notes the connection between religious ethics and their mythical components. He also notes the fluidity and dynamism of religious traditions: many people over the span of many years interpret differently, perform the myths, rituals and rites of theses religious traditions. However certain fundamental beliefs, and values make unity possible and make diverse religious movements into tradition. As mentioned previously, all four of these elements characteristic of religious traditions can be seen in Earth First!. He brings up a letter that was left by the bomber of Judi Bari, who as an Earth First! member was on her way to a rally to defend the Red Woods in California when her car exploded, “I AM THE LORD’S AVENGER” and left Genesis 1:26 below. Taylor argues that this letter, illustrates how some spiritual values motivate such atrocities. He also notes the importance that Lynn White’s article (1967) about how western religious movements like Judaism and Christian have fueled antrhopentircism and anti-nature tendencies and granted humans permission to dominate nature. White’s articel had a substantial impact on Earth First! member Dave Foreman; in speaking of origins of  ecological destruction he has said, ”our problem is a spiritual crisis” (187). Thus White’s letter, as noted by Taylor, is “an epistle for spiritual reform” (186). Though many Earth First!ers reject organized religion, many are motivated by deep spiritual connection to nature. Many are motivate by an ecological consciousness, a deep, sacred, overwhelming connection with all of life. This deep ecology, or biocentric ethic came through the Darwinian discovery of evolution taught in the ecological sciences. If all species evolved from the same source as evolution teaches us they did, then the anthropocentric underpinnings are entirely futile and hold no weight, along with the idea that man has “dominion over the earth.” However, the argument the evolutionary cosmology displaces human beings as the center of the universe, and levels the playing field for humans, animals and nature, leaves one question unanswered: where does value lie? Taylor believes this is why so much spirituality gets poured into the Earth First! movement: this question needs to be answered and with evolution as the fundamental axiom, this question is still left unanswered. Some kind of spirituality is necessarily required to form the basis for valuing the evolutionary process. Christopher Manes, philosopher-member of Earth First! grounds deep ecology and Earth First! in “the profound spiritual attachment people have to nature”(188). The belief that all life is sacred and interconnected informs the visions and beliefs of Earth First!, whether they consider themselves religious or not.

13. Wall, Derek. 1999. Culture, Ideology and the Anti-Roads Movement. In Earth First! And the Anti-Roads Movement: Radical Environmentalism and comparative social movements. London: Rutledge. 1999. Print.

Derek Wall analyzes the core framing methods and ideology that shape and power the agenda of political social movements like Earth first!. “Politics, in the form of ideology that criticizes an existing society and promotes an alternative vison, especially perhaps green politics, cannot easily be separated from culture” (142). Wall, like Taylor and Keller, remarks that the angst with which Earth First! operates is marked by mythologized and dramatized ideology that unmasks the ambiguous abstractions to an ecological reality than can be understood and diagnosed. Wall remarks that the frame realignment model has been enacted to show how culture can aid movement growth. Therefore, movements act as “signifying agents” working to formulate and structure meaning so as to inspire the kind of action-creating ideology that Earth First! employs (143). However, against this, Wall argues that movements like Earth First! Are motivated by political belief and needn’t construct fancy forms of ideology simply as a means of resource mobilization. Though Earth First! may frame its opposition in such a way as to garner support and resources, their ultimate goal is combat the fundamental evil of ecodestruction, itself. Although Wall points out that Earth First! has conducted the three core framing processes (reminisce) of political social movements that first identified by Snow and Benford: 1.) diagnosing a problem, 2.) advancing the prognosis, and 3.) motivating others to action with ideological frames.  However, he notes that eventually this ideological frame, given new activists’ participation in the movement, shifted dramatically.  All the activists whom Wall interviewed identified with the deep-seeded belief that there is an imminent ecological catastrophe approaching which has been made manifest through the symptomology of loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, greenhouse warming, among others symptoms. Also, deep ecology has been emphasized as a diagnostic frame centering on the intrinsic worth of all species rather than solely on the consequences of human environmental destruction. Wall continues on to speak of the ways in which Earth First!’s idealogy is framed by ecofeminists, anarchists and others coming from specific-framed worldviews from social issues like sex and gender equality among others. These different frames represented the many voices of Earth First! “variously attacking industry the state, reductionalist philosophies and overpopulation as causes of ecological and social ills” (145). Among these different views attributing their angst to different triggers, industrialization, capitalism, and the state are commonly shared targets. Wall identifies the importance of these motivational ideological frames in bringing in vibrant social components linking ecological to wider goals like human emancipation.  It’s not difficult to see the force of ideology behind movements like Earth First! when wide social issues like human flourishing are engulfed within the ecological frame: such polemic strategies make it difficult to ignore the further pressing issue. Thus Wall’s argument elicits the integral component of idealogical- framing that stresses the need for direct action. From deep ecology to more broad forms of social justice, in this way, Earth First! stresses the deep connection between the social and environmental. The connection between perceived environmental issues and its reference to social functions, like that of culture, economic change, social class and state power,  is integral to understanding its origins. These social functions situate the origins of the movement by igniting its perception of inequality and oppression which fuels its origins.

Bibliography:

 

1. Forman, Dave. Earth First!. In Earth Ethics. Edited by James P. Sterba. New Jersey: University of Notre dame.
2. Keller, Catherine. 1995. A Christian Response to the Population Apocalypse. In Population, Consumption and the Environment: Religious and Secular Responses. Edited by Harold Coward. New York. State University Press.
3. Keller, Catherine. 1994. Eschatology, Ecology, and a Green Ecumenacy. In Restructuring Christian Theology. Edited by Rebecca Chopp & Mark Lewis Taylor. Minneapolis. Fortress Press.
4. Lee, Martha. 1997. The millennial Ideology of Earth First!. In Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem: Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements. Edited by Thomas Robbins and Susan Palmer, London: Routledge.
5. Lee, Martha. 1995. Earth First!: Environmental Apocalypse. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
6. Lorentezen, Louis Ann. Phallic Millennialism and Radical Environmentalism: The Apocalyptic Vision of Earth First!. In The Year 2000: Essays on the End. Edited by Charles Strozier and Michael Flinn. New York: University Press.
7. McDaniel, Jay. 1994. Emerging Options in Ecological Christianity: The New Story, the Biblical Story, and Pantheism. In Ecological Prospects. Edited by Christopher Key Chapple. New York: State University.
8. Moore, Stephen. Ecotherology. In Untold Tales From the Book of Revelation. Atlanta: SBL Press.
9. Taylor, Bron. 2001. Earth and Nature Based Spirituality (Part 1): From Deep Ecology to Radical Environmentalism. Religion 31: 175-193.
10. Taylor, Bron. 2001. Earth and Nature Based Spirituality (Part II): From Earth First! And Bioregionalism to Scientific Paganism. Religion 31: 225-245.
11. Taylor, Bron. 1995. Earth First! And Global Narratives of Popular Ecological resistance in Ecological Resistance Movements. Edited by Bron Taylor. New York: State University.
12. Taylor, Bron. 1994. Earth Firsts!’s Religious Radicalism. In Ecological Prospects. Edited by Christopher Key Chapple. New York: State University.
13. Wall, Derek. 1999. Culture, Ideology and the Anti-Roads Movement. In Earth First! And the Anti-Roads Movement: Radical Environmentalism and comparative social movements. London: Rutledge. 1999. Print.

 

 

 

 

 

 

S.S.